Why membership provider is not generic?
Posted
by Timmy O' Tool
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by Timmy O' Tool
Published on 2010-04-10T22:04:14Z
Indexed on
2010/04/10
22:13 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 235
I have to confess that I hate membership provider. The default implementation is not very appropriate normally and I haven't seen so far a good implementation of a custom membership provider, probably because this is not possible :-)
So the question is:
In your opinion: which are the reasons for not having membership/role provider as a generic class? I mean, why Microsoft didn't selected this approach.
© Stack Overflow or respective owner